Did Tony Rabbott produce any evidence of malfeasance? None that I’m aware of. Instead he pronounced the PM to show ‘conduct unbecoming.’ Coming from him this was a rich brew of poison.

Looking slightly sheepish, Malcolm Turnbull didn’t seem overjoyed at being reminded of the Godwin Grech scenario which had helped to place the skids under him as Liberal Party leader. What a bunch of embittered old men {and a couple of women}, are, who inhabit the Coalition front/back benches, on that side of the House.

Tony Rabbott might care to pass my regards to his little ankle-biter. As with him, Julie Bishop is all front and no depth. I wish them all an unhappy Christmas, and a dreadful New Year.

Some of the assertions by the coalition and Hedley Thomas were based on the (now shown to be false) assumption that the association was set up on the instructions of the union, rather than on behalf of some individuals.

It’s almost comical as each new piece of “damning” evidence is revealed. The emperor’s new clothes…

I wonder what they think the “legal advice” was, and if they have considered what it ought to be. I can well remember a new member of parliament showing me the advice he had just given as a barrister to a well known charity which said 1. yes the scheme may well work legally but 2. it might be a very bad idea for your relations with government/ATO if you go ahead with your part of it and that is without considering the ethical issues you might wish to consider.

In fact it doesn’t appear that Gillard gave any significant legal advice. (What was the question on which she was asked to advise if you doubt that?). She simply helped use her firm’s services for putting filling in and lodging forms, paying fees etc. However, she must have known that she was helping her lover to set up a body which misappropriated the name of her firm’s major client the AWU so what did she say about that? She must have known that since it was a “slush fund” for helping her lover keep control of the levers of power and money in the AWU neither the name nor the objects registered were honest. So why didn’t she give either “legal” or just plain moral advice against that? Not to mention refraining from her part in deceiving the WA licensing or registration body.

The more you think about it she was behaving like a sleazy crook or gangster’s moll and yet we have her as PM without her even claiming that she once was a sinner but now is saved!

Do you really think those are equivalent? Honestly?

First - the phone hacking actually happened. The people at the top were in fact found to have had a direct hand in it. There’s evidence. I’m still waiting to hear what it is that the PM is supposed to have actually done wrong.

She was misled - absolutely. But she wasn’t alone. And in order to make this look like malfeasance, it’s necessary to ignore a lot of other things going one (does anyone REALLY believe that only three people knew about that association? Really?), and it’s necessary to imply that gillard did or knew far more than there is any evidence (or justification) to believe. She didn’t create any association - the bagmen did. Their signatures are on that form, and they were responsible for its filing. Anyone can fill in a form - they don’t actually need a lawyer to do that. And, it should be pointed out, that wasn’t the only “slush fund” those guys were using anyway.

The rest of it - what S&G and gillard knew, or when, or what they should have done, or what the impact of that was, or whether or not gillard’s involvement made any difference to the outcome … is just wishful thinking.

How does this end? The PM’s not stepping down, not a chance. Not unless something properly criminal is found, and I don’t think anyone’s really expecting that (nor ever were, I suspect)

So what happens next? Does it keep going until the election? Is everyone just hoping like hell that something REALLY interesting comes along to take the front pages? Maybe New Zealand invades us? Or will everyone in the press just take a deep breath, get a good night’s sleep on a friday and come in to their offices on monday and start talking about something that’s likely to actually go somewhere, never mentioning the “AWU Scandal” ever again?

Or does the PM start suing people for their “verbal slips”?

Remember in the Hansen case there was a genuine slush fund and it was based in WA. Was Bishop involved in that.

Curious that both his targets are red haired women.

Could we say that the alliance of Bishop & Abbott is an “Unholy Alliance” despite theirt names?

Elderly, male misogynists in Australia can’t deal with a woman in power, just like the elderly, white racists can’t deal with a black president - so they cling to any pathetic straw that allows them to think that the hated figure is illegitimate.

Look at the similarities

Started and run by shock jocks - tick
Supported by the Murdoch empire - tick
All questions answered, with documentary evidence - tick
All answers rejected, same questions asked over and over and over - tick

In fact this is now the entire MO of the extreme right wing nut brigade. They’ve done it to Climate change - it’s not happening! It’s a conspiracy! Cover up! They did it with cigarettes and lung cancer, that was the model that worked and it’s been recycled ever since.

Read Naomi Oreskes book Merchants of Doubt.
This is not about truth, its about sowing doubt in the minds of the politically unengaged so they’ll vote against the ‘climate lie’, foreign-born socialist, corrupt union patsy…

It’s hilarious and extremely poor journalism, that you lazily play the gender card for Gillard. She is the one who deliberately lied to a WA government agency in registering the slush fund, which she told them was for the purpose of safer workplaces and skills training. If she is completely free of any poor behaviour, then why did she resign?

As Dennis Shanahan noted, when pressed as to why she did she leave her jobnot tell the AWU or authorities of the existence of the association after concerns about Wilson’s alleged fraud involving another slush fund were voiced publicly, the Prime Minister argued she had no evidence of any criminality or wrongdoing to report to the AWU or police.

But when asked in parliament earlier this month why she had not reported “the fraud” involving the AWU Workplace Reform Association, Gillard replied: “By the time the matters she (Bishop) refers to came to my attention they were already the subject of inquiry and investigation.”

You’ve got to be kidding”The Prime Minister has threatened media organisations so that the matter would not be reported which led to two journalsts sackings”

Not Reported !!!!!!!!! What do you call blanket coverage that has been going on for gawd knows how long & endless investigations by News Ltd!

The basis on which the account was set up was less than ideal but not an uncommon occurrence. What happened afterwards was nothing to do with the PM. IUf bribes were paid then why aren’t those who paid them also being pursued? Surely they are just as culpable

If you are concerned with probity how about the endless corporate malpractice that elicits not a squeak from a subservient media and worthless oppostion?

And “Abbott the Ventriloquist” using “Barbie” Bishop doll to deliver his lines in “the big house” yesterday - nothing else on? How would Bishop like her past (toiling away in the interests of CSR - to put off having to face their responsibilties) dragged out (like this past of Gillard’s is being projected in our media) to show her real “interest” in the likes of “Abbott/Howard Battlers” - the workers - with their vote, and with WorkChoices waiting for new name.

And to echo many others: death of the old white farts media? bring it on.